Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!umich!vela!m.cs.uiuc.edu!ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!krol From: krol@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Ed Krol) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Motorolas "wireless lan" Message-ID: <1991Apr21.225857.2787@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 21 Apr 91 22:58:57 GMT References: <4473@catfish11.UUCP> Distribution: comp Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 20 We had Motorola come out and demonstrate it. When it works it works and when it doesn't it doesn't. It is meant to be a plug and play ethernet replacement. A central unit which will be a learning bridge for 32 enet addresses. There can be any number of remote units which will drive up to 6 hosts on their local section of enet. We plugged it into an existing enet by way of a cabletron multiport repeated then put the remote box on a cart with a compac and wheeled it around the lab. Second it is not meant to be a mobile ethernet. It does a lot of calculation about best route out of the 6 sided antenna and whenever you move it there is about 30 seconds of recalibration. When the remote end got a green light (good connection) the thing worked well. When we got a flashing green (not good connection, but detecting central site) it sometimes worked and sometimes not. The does it work appears to be based on how much concrete is between the two sites. We tried it a short distance through a maze of cinderblock and it failed. But by moving slightly it worked. Its also a bit pricy (~3k/box). I guess I would say if I had what I thought was a reason to use it I would try some before I bought.